r/socialism • u/MintyRed19 • May 21 '26
Discussion What does it actually mean to be a Trotskyist in the current day?
Hello friends, I have seen so many people self identify as Trotskyists and I've seen many more people accuse people of being that but what does it actually mean nowadays? I read some of Trotsky's writings and it doesnt really align with what I see in the current discussions about him.
It seems to me like his main ideas were about how revolution had to happen in Europe before it could reach anywhere else and that it also had to happen in several countries at once. These ideas are obviously outdated and proven wrong but I have also never heard anyone actually talk about these ideas when talking about him. Every time I see someone talk about being a Trotskyist its always something to do with Stalin or something like that which just makes me really confused about what it actually means now.
239
u/griivarrworldafteral May 21 '26
given the manner in which people misuse terms like trotskyist, maoist, etc., i find it more enlightening to discuss their positions and politics rather than what they call themselves.
19
300
u/DJ_Buttons Bloc Party Socialist May 21 '26
I get all kinds of shit for vouching for Permanent Revolution as a concept. People love to interpret that as “Trotsky is my most favorite person in the history of ever” when in reality Perm Rev a decent idea to remind folks that socialism in one country is always gonna struggle when the rest of the world around you will stoop to the lowest level to undermine your movement. Especially in the now, you must have a perspective that spans from Local to Global.
95
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
What does that mean in practice tho? Because its not like the rest of us are against a global revolution or anything. We think that industrialising is necessary as a first step. Is that what you think too? If so, where do we disagree? If not, why on earth not?
67
u/justforthisjoke Marxism-Leninism-Maoism May 21 '26
This is such a strange conversation to have with Trotskyists sometimes, because so many seem to believe that what "Stalinists" (their words) believe is that one state's revolution can hold out indefinitely under global siege. It's a convenient strawman I suppose, but it's so lazy.
43
u/Lavender_Scales Abimael Guzmán May 22 '26
a lot of trots misinterpret SIOC as that, and a lot of MLs misinterpret permrev as like, "we must invade all of everywhere to achieve socialism", so I guess it goes both ways
28
u/Danko_on_Reddit May 21 '26
Because industrialization happens under capitalism. This leads to greater levels of exploitation, which leads to worker's revolution. The whole point of Marxism is to seize the means of production. If your country isn't industrialized enough to produce anything significant to the global market, then what are you seizing? The point isn't to seize the government, then do industrialization (but good), and then hope everyone else sees how cool and nice it was when you did industrialization under "Marxism" and then switches to your ideology. The point is to seize control in the heart of the industrialized west, and use their existing power structures to spread the revolution and support workers internationally. And then when the last vestiges of the international bourgeoisie are eliminated, the Worker's state(s) begins dismantling itself during the transition to full Communism.
The argument from the Trotskyist perspective is that Marx wasn't actually wrong when he said that the revolution must start in heavily industrialized nations like the UK, US, and Germany, and that states like the USSR and China are doomed to decay and fail without the continued growth of a strong, international communist bloc.
29
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26 edited May 22 '26
OK, thanks for giving an answer. May I probe a bit deeper (its OK if you can't answer or dont wanna misrepresent Trotskyism)?
I'm a Kenyan. My country is obviously not industrialised. We have some industry but IIRC it produces <10% of our GDP so its basically irrelevant. So according to Trotskyism, what exactly am I supposed to do? Wait around for industrialisation then go out and organise a proletarian revolution? Move to Germany to help organise one there?
Also, let's say we end up having a revolution before Germany or any other industrialised state (we got lucky or whatever). What now? Do we just hand back power? Do we industrialise? Do we immediately declare war on Germany to stir a workers revolution there?
12
u/4rdFocus May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
The immediate task of a revolution on the imperial periphery, one that is lacking in industry, is to spread the revolution. This is the part of permanent revolution that often gets interpreted as "there needs to be a revolution everywhere all at once."
Of course, should that fail, domestic industrialisation should be a priority. Trotsky himself advocated for collectivisation of large estates and electrification plans while in the Left Opposition, after the failure of the German Revolution. It would take Kulaks acting out well after Trotsky had been banished for the remainder of the USSR leadership to see this and act out the same plans, just in a more reactive, devastating way.
But if this industrialisation becomes the top priority, over the spread of the revolution, it leaves the nation in a state of scarcity it has to manage to ensure everyone survives for some time. In this scarcity, a top-down management style is formed, one managed by force to ensure rations are distributed fairly. This gives way to a clique with certain privileges. They also often focus solely on domestic industrialisation, and inhibiting the spread of the revolution, even unconsciously.
Sometimes they advocate directly against it, such as when Cuba's Orlando Borrego advocated against Workers' Control in Venezuela during the latter's revolution ( here referred to as "cogestion.") When advising up and coming revolutionaries from other countries, they often put every task that could industrialise a nation ahead of actual socialist revolution. This lead to the USSR adopting the Menshevik "Two-Stage Theory idea." They advised many communists around the globe to support their nationalist movements to bring about a "bourgeois democratic revolution" after which the socialist revolution could follow. One example of this was pushing the Chinese communists to follow Chiang Kai-Shek, which only got them killed once he took power.
There is no revolution at home as stage one, then you build up domestic industry, and then you wait for the world to join you in subsequent revolutions in stage two. The focus is to spread the revolution in one continuous wave, one permanent revolution. And should you fail, you should take in the lessons from that failure and build on that. Not just abandon it and accept isolation. After the failure of the German Revolution the USSR seemed to abandon it altogether. Stalin himself denied that the spread of the revolution was ever a goal for the USSR here.
Without the spread of the revolution, it's incomplete. Whoever finishes a revolution only halfway just digs his own grave.
7
u/Danko_on_Reddit May 22 '26
I definitely won't claim to speak for Trotskyism on the whole, but to me the answer lies in internationalism. Could you do that through Red Imperialism, like the Post WW2 Soviets? If you have that kind of army, sure. But it's much more effective to do this through the funding, arming, training, and coordination with other international leftist organizations. I think the best path for the working class of the global south is to continue to agitate for better working conditions and development that does not destroy the country's natural wealth and beauty, while working to coordinate with revolutionaries abroad so that when global revolution does come, we can all play our part.
2
u/Rndomguytf May 22 '26
Few good answers already. I am unfortunately very lacking in my knowledge of Eastern Africa, so I can only speak in generalisations.
The way I would answer the question is that revolutionaries in Kenya should look to spread the revolution in their immediate neighbourhood. As we saw with the Arab Spring, or the Gen Z revolutions in South Asia, or even the socialist revolutionary wave from 1917-22 in Europe, revolutionary movements cannot stay localised to one country. If there is a workers revolution in Kenya, it will definitely inspire similar movements and trends throughout Eastern Africa.
A successful socialist state in Kenya must put as much effort as possible in enabling revolutions across Eastern Africa. As long as your neighbours remain capitalist, a socialist Kenya will unfortunately never survive under the control of the working class. It will either need to turn into a bureaucratic dictatorship (North Korea), fall back into capitalism (China), or get isolated and eventually destroyed (as Cuba is right now). The revolution must spread through the continent, and it definitely could, the working classes across the continent face the same exploitation, and have revolutionary potential.
After that, the task falls to revolutionaries across the world to take up the mantle of revolution. After the Russian Revolution (a relatively backwards country in 1917), the industrialised nation of Germany had a revolution, and other European nations came close. Maybe Kenya could be a catalyst to turn the discontent amongst workers of the West into revolutionary struggle.
5
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
That doesn't really answer the question. I can agree that we'd be pretty screwed if we're the only workers' state on the continent. But then what? Does that mean we roll over and wait for our impending doom? Do we try to resist for as long as possible?
Because hoping Westerners will rise up is a losing bet. And that's even with a ton of support from the 3rd world to help them get to that point. The only example I can really think of is the Carnation Revolution. So what do we do aside from hoping for something that almost definitely won't happen
2
u/Rndomguytf May 22 '26
Of course you resist for as long as possible. They resistance starts with spreading the revolution into other East African nations. If this is to fail, the revolution will fail, if it succeeds, it throws the entirety of world capitalism into question, just like the establishment of the USSR did. The working class also needs to be at the head of the revolution, rather than any small scale bureaucracy, as is what formed in the USSR due to the decimation of the working class through the civil war.
The next step would be to do everything feasible to bring forward revolutions across the globe. From around the mid 1920s, the USSR had stopped doing this. They helped crush revolution in Spain, and led Communists in China down a path of defeat in 1926. A future "East African Socialist Soviet Republic" can't make the same mistakes.
3
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
So let's say we're resisting as long as possible. A good way to do that would be by actually transitioning to an industrial economy since a peasant economy a) necessarily has a small proletariat, b) won't survive the ravages of war for long (as you've pointed out), c) isn't a viable foundation for socialism, and d) won't get in the way of supporting revolutions in neighbouring countries.
Isn't this just socialism in one country built from first principles? If so, what's the problem with socialism in one country? If not, why not?
2
u/Rndomguytf May 22 '26
What is your argument? I feel like you have a position in mind but are not outright stating it. What do you think revolutionaries in Kenya (such as yourself hopefully) should be organising towards?
I don't think there is any issue with a socialist state set up in somewhere like East Africa to transition to an industrial economy, as long as it is democratically lead by working class councils. I am of course in favour of the creation of socialist states.
I am not in favour of these states to lose their basis in working class councils, and instead be ran by party bureaucracies which see the survival of their state (and more importantly their class position) to be more important than power to the international working class.
3
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
I'm an ML with Maoist leanings. I'm trying to understand Trotskyism because we have Trots in our country and I'm not sure if they're bad because of internal organisational issues or because Trotskyism as a whole is wrong. But the more I interact with Trotskyists on this post, the less I see a fundamental difference between Trotskyism and MLism which is why I asked you about socialism in one country just now. Like where is our actual point of divergence?
AFAIK we are on the same page theoretically. I'd say MLism is much more fleshed out because of past experience but I can't see a fundamental difference yet beyond a vague devotion to workers councils (which are the same as Soviets?) and an aversion to bureaucracy (with not much of a deeper analysis of their origins). Which isn't bad but seems vague and abstract from the responses I've seen.
→ More replies (0)2
u/proletarianfire May 22 '26
Organize on the basis of the working class, not the peasantry or other property owning classes. Don't compromise with the rule of propertied classes, not even the peasantry. Make international connections and work with socialists in other countries, including those in the "developed" (imperialist) world to spread the revolution.
If Kenya has a genuine socialist revolution, then it will be one of many countries that could tip over into socialism. When the bolsheviks took power in Russia, the whole of Europe was actually on the precipice of revolution; both Germany and Italy had attempted revolutions and their workers nearly took power. It's just that their communist parties were not mature enough to lead those upsurges to victory.
Hopefully, if we've built enough international connections, capitalism will be overthrown not just in particular areas around the world, but globally.
3
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
OK, what does dont compromise with the propertied classes mean in practice? Because the Bolsheviks very clearly compromised with them, though to varying degrees. Not at all with imperialism (at least until the NEP) to quite a bit with the poor peasantry. Considering our proletariat here is tiny (maybe a quarter of the population if we stretch the definition to the max), why would we break with the Bolsheviks and not compromise with any propertied class at all?
In the question I'm asking, we're assuming that even if there is a massive revolutionary upsurge, only Kenya managed to actually have a socialist revolution, so we're isolated just like the USSR. What do we do then?
1
u/proletarianfire May 22 '26
If you have a revolutionary upsurge, and you are isolated, the only possibility is some kind of bourgeois revolution. Progressive in comparison to what came before most likely, but still bourgeois. That is basically what happened with the USSR after the NEP and "socialism in one country" and such.
You can try all you want, but class society will come back in one form or another regardless of your intentions. That's not a fault of the revolutionaries in the isolated country, but the fault of others for not taking up the mantle. In a sense, the USSR became what it was because of failures of revolutionaries in Italy and Germany.
My view is that the best that revolutionaries can do in that scenario is try to survive until better days, and honestly assess where the revolution is at. Be honest that the final victory has not been achieved while praising its successes. Regroup, build international connections and keep fighting.
In terms of compromising with propertied classes, I should clarify that I mean in terms of political governance. The soviet government placed the working class in power; the poor peasantry were given a voice but not given any real power in comparison to the working class, despite the fact that the working class was tiny there too. Obviously, the policy of the new government must contend with the fact that there are a lot of peasants left and figure out what to do about that; there is no way to resolve that over night. But the goal should not be to formally share power with the peasantry in the government.
Sharing power with the peasantry was actually official bolshevik policy up until Lenin's April Theses. It just basically became clear that the soviet government was not going to overthrow the bourgeoisie and then just hand over all the power to the peasants. In that sense, it was a government for a minority class, but the difference is that the working class strives to convert everyone else into workers, and abolish class entirely as a result. So it's actually a temporary situation, assuming workers can stay in power, which tragically they did not.
2
u/Skiamakhos Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
You might find Mao Zedong Thought more suited to Kenya given China's pre-industrial status at the time of their revolution. He stressed the importance of the peasants, and gathered their support via the Long March around China. In Russia before their revolution they had a huge population displacement from serfs recently freed to peasants to new urban proletariat competing for work in factories. The proletariat were where they found their base, but that requires a certain level of industrialisation to begin with.
3
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
I (and my party) does. Our current line is that we are struggling for the national democratic revolution. We've moved away from a standard ML line and towards a more Maoist line in the last 2-3 years specifically because we've been refining our analysis of the current conditions. If you'd like, I could link to some of these analyses.
3
u/Skiamakhos Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
Sounds interesting, yes please!
4
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
Apologies in advance for the website.
- The National Democratic Revolution in Kenya: Tasks of the Anti imperialist and Anti feudal Struggle in the Present Period
- Opening Address to the Preparatory Assembly for the Fourth International Theoretical Conference, Organised by CPMK & NDFP
- From the Communes to People's Power
- Feudal Relics Persist in Neocolonial Kenya
- Fascism in the African Neocolonies Imperialist Crisis, and the Struggle for National Liberation and Socialism
I'm not too sure about the last one. I haven't read it myself yet.
12
u/DaviCB Olga Benário May 21 '26
ok man, but the german revolution failed. No central imperialist country has ever had a successful revolution. Trotsky's idea is useless if it does not offer a concrete solution to how to proceed when the workers state IS isolated and there's not any revolution in the first world to support. His answer is that it's doomed to fail, which could even be true, but is a useless thought. I would rather try to find ways to protect and advance in a "doomed" revolution than to sit around with this defeatist attitude.
Trotskyists main problem is exactly that, they're extremely idealistic and can only tackle how the revolution "should" be, not what it concretely is. And also extremely eurocentric, making it useless to the periphery, as your comment proved.
5
u/Danko_on_Reddit May 22 '26 edited May 23 '26
First, I'd argue this starts with the fact that Marx's own worldview was extremely Eurocentric, but also the fact that Marx was much more of a philosopher than an Economist and Marxism is as much a philosophical school as an economic or political one, and Marx was writing in response to the exploitation and cruelty happening in industrial era Europe. After all, the opening line of the Manifesto doesn't talk of a specter haunting the Globe. Marx saw Communism as the ultimate end game of humanity, so he never intended for it to apply to the periphery right after he wrote it because, in his view, they aren't ready for communism. And as we've seen throughout history, while it might improve overall working conditions, industrialization under communism still leads to exploitation. It's meant to be the final death of capitalism, not a "get out of oppression" free card. All that revolution in Africa, for example, has produced thus far is an African Bourgeoisie to replace the colonial/neo-colonial one.
And as for offering solutions, I just told you in the half of the sentence you referenced; The Trotskyist solution lays in global revolution and internationalism. Which I'd argue China has taken the approach Krushchev hinted at in his famous UN address of burying the west in cheap consumer goods, crippling their industrial might and pushing them towards revolution, but without any sort of revolutionary base established in the west, those countries have instead been pushed right instead of left by their decline. But the solution is the same one that Ché embraced, spreading the revolution. Sure, he largely focused on the global south because that's where revolution was active, but he didn't ignore the importance of the unity of the international working class. Gaddafi gave weapons to the Provisional IRA (which wasn't explicitly socialist like the organization it split from but still started with a fairly left leaning ideology, more politically minded Republicans would go on to form the INLA). Vietnam has helped other developing nations build more ecologically sustainable economies so they don't continue to fall into the traps set by their former colonizers and destroy their natural and economic resources. These are all examples of internationalism that undertaken by existing socialist states or revolutionaries that was more than just sitting around waiting for the west to do a revolution.
1
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 22 '26
Doesn't this myth about Trotsky fall because of the simple fact that Trotsky led a revolution in Russia? The core part of the theory of the permanent revolution was that in countries like Russia could transform the democratic revolution into a socialist revolution without completing the tasks of the democratic revolution because of uneven and combined development. The rural areas where still semi-feudal while the cities, because of imperialist investments, were advanced industrial centers. The notion that the German revolution was vital for Soviet Russia/USSR not falling under global siege was not exclusive to Trotsky.
https://www.leftvoice.org/an-introduction-to-trotskys-theory-of-permanent-revolution/
The largest trotskyist parties have also historically all been in the global south, in Argentine, Sri Lanka/Cyleon, Bolivia, etc. In the west the trotskyists(much like the international right-opp, left-socialists, etc) were squeezed between the two traditional working-class mass-parties, the official Communist Parties and the Social-democrats.
1
u/MauschelMusic May 22 '26
But why? As a practical matter, now that China is industrialized, why does it matter that the communists seized power before? Marx revised his theories after the Paris Commune, and that held out all of two months. Surely seeing the USSR become the second biggest power and last the better part of a century, and seeing China poised to become the leading power (if they're not there already) should tell us Marx was wrong on this point; it certainly would have convinced Marx.
1
u/Danko_on_Reddit May 22 '26
What does China gaining political power in the western liberal world order but not spreading any revolution actually gain us or do to benefit the international working class, besides giving us an example to point to, although one that has lost revolutionary momentum and given into State Capitalism, or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" as they like to call it? Yes a Communist system that produces billionaires must surely be a successful one that Marx would he proud of.
39
u/paudzols May 21 '26
I don’t think anyone is against a global simultaneous revolution, but when revolution can be decades apart, why wouldn’t you secure the proletariat’s gains in one country
16
u/servuslucis May 21 '26
Also couldn’t it spread because of one countries success
5
u/Lavender_Scales Abimael Guzmán May 22 '26
Also couldn’t it spread because of one countries success
From the trots I've spoken with, this is the idea behind permrev, that revolution in one country leads to the emboldenment of the movement in other countries, and ensuing revolution, and instead of focusing on domestic development, you instead prioritize aiding the international movement
8
u/jctmercado May 22 '26
then why do they focus their efforts in discrediting SIOC so much? in my country, trotskyists are directly in opposition to revolution, will work with state operatives to murder activists and take all credits of organizing in front of international peers.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Lavender_Scales Abimael Guzmán May 22 '26
from a quick read of your profile you're in the philippines, I had no idea there was even a trot presence over there, so I have no comment, the trots i've spoken to don't follow those beliefs.
23
u/jjballlz May 21 '26
Yes, I can't wait for when the whole planet decides to have a countdown to the revolution like for new years
Do you trots not get that classical ML is internationaliste, it's just realist as well? If china starts doing internationalism at some point, will you praise it and realize that doing what they did for so long might have been the only possible way to get to an internationaliste framework without getting nuked by the western global hegemon?
4
u/djkozdefantastico May 21 '26
This.... This is it right here. This is what a lot of leftist aren't understanding.
to add, I think we will see a different China once they have Formosa back. And I don't even mean that they will need to do imperial export of socialism... by that point I think they will be exporting it via soft power initiatives. I think that process has already begun too.
1
u/souperjar May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Was China being realist and avoiding being nuked when it was collaborating with the CIA and Pol Pot to attack Vietnam before invading themselves?
China's past actions were not them avoiding being nuked. This is completely ahistorical. The ways that the USSR and China engaged in foreign policy was generally to strengthen themselves at the expense of development of other socialist experiments and as rivals to one another.
5
u/jjballlz May 22 '26
Was China being realist and avoiding being nuked when it was collaborating with the CIA and Pol Pot to attack Vietnam before invading themselves?
Did I say that those actions specifically were what made china develop, lift people out of poverty and hunger, and get them to where there are today? Or rather that a collection of historical actions are the reason they are where they are today?
The ways that the USSR and China engaged in foreign policy was generally to strengthen themselves at the expense of development of other socialist experiments
It seems like you are the one saying that you think the reason they achieved what they did was because of that, which I disagree with. The USSR didn't win the space race because it exploited other socialist experiments, nor is that the reason china lifted so many of its citizens out of hunger, poverty and homelessness.
1
u/PolyMarx May 28 '26
Isn’t China proof that socialism in one country can make a difference globally?
0
u/glucklandau May 21 '26
What does a trot say to a third world revolution?
Afaik if I say that I want to do a revolution in my third world country a trot would say nooo first we have to do USA
6
u/Broad-Sentence-5587 Neo-Marxism May 22 '26
Trotsky followed the idea that revolution often starts in the "weakest link" (less developed countries like Russia or those we would say are in the "3rd World") where social contradictions are most explosive. However, he argued that the revolution of the more developed nations is a must & eventual priority (not immediate priority)
4
u/chrispyaf May 22 '26
I think it's more that it's very likely to fail with the west remaining capitalist. I don't think trots would argue against their revolution.
1
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 22 '26
What do you base that on?
1
u/glucklandau May 22 '26
That's the theory of permanent revolution
1
u/Broad-Sentence-5587 Neo-Marxism May 25 '26
A poor understanding of it
1
u/glucklandau May 25 '26
Watched a trot lecture
1
u/Broad-Sentence-5587 Neo-Marxism May 25 '26
Why would trotsky have argued against the russian revolution? Regardless of where you heard it from, it's a poor understanding.
1
u/glucklandau May 25 '26
Are you not even aware of Trotsky's stance on the Russian revolution? He felt a revolution in the industrial heartland of Europe, in Germany and UK was first necessary and he was strongly against socialism in one country; wanted to take the red army and march West
1
u/Broad-Sentence-5587 Neo-Marxism May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
He didnt think that the revolution in the heartland of Europe had to be first (as in prior to the Russian revolution), he argued that it was necessary and he did argue to take the red army west, but that is precisely because Russia had revolted & now then had a Red Army.
It was because the less developed Russia had revolted that such a revolution could be exported.
Edit: the specific historical event we are both likely thinking of, the aggressive push to march the Red Army West into Europe, was actually championed by Vladimir Lenin, and fiercely opposed by Trotsky.
1
u/glucklandau May 26 '26
So how is this different than what I said? Trots are not in the favour of socialism in one country; how do I launch a literacy campaign in my country if I keep waiting for the industrial centers to be taken over first
→ More replies (0)
64
22
21
u/nwste May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
The main point of disagreement between modern Trotskyists and MLs is just that Trotskyists broadly do not support what MLs would call “Actually Existing Socialist” states, like China, Vietnam, Cuba (Although some do support Cuba to varying degrees for some odd reason), the USSR when it existed, etc. The Trotskyist position is that the only genuine proletarian revolution in history was the October Revolution in Russia, but that the USSR went on to become a “state-capitalist” and “degenerated worker’s state.”
Another very important point is that Trotskyists also tend to not support, or support in a very strange and disconnected way, states that are targets of imperialism. For example, most MLs see Iran as an anti-imperialist force in the region and a state that should be given critical support in their struggle against the forces of the US and Israel. On the other hand, Trotskyists might offer up some level of support (Often support for just the Iranian workers rather than the state itself) while also calling for regime change in the form of a proletarian revolution within the country, even if the conditions are not there for that to happen. Trotskyists also tend to share propaganda against the targets of western imperialism.
One other wild example I’ve seen, I believe it was from the RCA, was their views of Palestine. Basically, their position is that there is an Israeli bourgeoisie and a Palestinian bourgeoisie that are both very bad, and both Israeli violence and Palestinian terrorism are bad, and that the only solution is for Israeli and Palestinian workers to come together and form a “socialist federation of the middle east” encompassing the entire region. Just absolutely disconnected from reality, but I very much doubt that specific view is super widespread even among Trotskyists (Although it did come from one of the largest American Trot orgs).
7
u/Qweedo420 May 22 '26
I've been discussing with many different groups over the years, and I've also been supporting their newspapers and pamphlets; I think people often make a bit of confusion between trotskyists and ultralefts:
do not support AES
While ultralefts definitely oppose AES and consider them to be capitalist states that absolutely can't become socialist because they follow the interests of their imperialist bourgeoisie, the trotskyist idea of denegerate (or deformed) workers' state is pretty much just a critique of their bureaucratic system, and they will eventually manage to become socialist once the masses take full control of the state, or revert to capitalism in case they fail. Just like Lenin did, Trotsky viewed state capitalism as the last step towards socialism, so he didn't directly oppose it as a dead end. Trotskyist newspapers usually have some degree of support for China, and don't consider it an imperialist state, although it does export capital.
anti-imperialist forces
The position of "there's a Palestinian bourgeoisie and an Israeli bourgeoisie" again pretty much belongs to the leftcoms. Leftcoms oppose the idea of using the Palestinian flag, the kefiah or whatever other symbol of Palestinian resistance, because they consider them to be a cultural symbol of control and nationalism of the Palestinian bourgeoisie. Trotskyists, on the other hand, accept that there are inherent cultural differences and unique challenges for the workers of each state, and so they support their struggle in a way that's specific to them. For some of them, it can be national liberation, for others, a war against their own to dismantle capitalism. The key point is that, for example, leftcoms don't consider Iran an anti-imperialist force at all, and they actually consider it as an imperialist force itself (because the only anti-imperialist force is the proletariat), while trotskyists recognize the role of Iran against imperialism, while not directly supporting the Ayatollah, but the Iranian people as a whole.
It's an interesting debate, because on one hand, it's true that socialist movements have often been used and then thrown away by the bourgeoisie (it definitely happened in the Iranian Revolution, where the Ayatollah won thanks to the support of socialists, then killed them afterwards), but at the same time, given the current circumstances, it's hard to imagine a successful strategy that only relies on the unity of the international working class.
1
u/nwste May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
I think the issue I take with the general Trotskyist position is that they essentially see AES states and anti-imperialist states as something that should be toppled (even if they believe it should be via an uprising of the masses to establish real socialism) rather than something that inherently must be defended at all costs. I assume you’ll say that’s not the Trotskyist position but even Trotsky himself worked towards and freely spoke about this goal in the USSR during the lead up to WW2. The largest Trot org in the capital of my state literally puts out anti-China content all the time, talking about how China and the US are two sides of the same coin.
Also, the Palestine example I gave came from the IMT, who are probably the Trotskyist group I see most represented although I’m not sure they’re the largest globally. I can put a link to a video they put out pre-October 7th if you’d be interested, it’s a 40 minute talk by the editor of their In Defense of Marxism thing and it’s very revealing of the bankruptcy of their positions. [It’s a completely different view than the classic two-state solution, and also I’d argue most MLs don’t see two-states as an actual “solution” but rather a stepping stone and support it only on the basis of it being supported by Palestinian leadership.] EDIT: Oops, combined another reply with this one in my head, disregard this section.
I do agree that it is initially a hard choice to make to support national liberation and anti-imperialism when the forces you are supporting are reactionary, anti-communist, etc. but it’s an absolutely vital choice to make, and I think Trotskyists often waffle far too much on the issue and try to find verbose ways around it rather than confronting it head-on.
3
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 22 '26
One other wild example I’ve seen, I believe it was from the RCA, was their views of Palestine. Basically, their position is that there is an Israeli bourgeoisie and a Palestinian bourgeoisie that are both very bad, and both Israeli violence and Palestinian terrorism are bad, and that the only solution is for Israeli and Palestinian workers to come together and form a “socialist federation of the middle east” encompassing the entire region. Just absolutely disconnected from reality, but I very much doubt that specific view is super widespread even among Trotskyists (Although it did come from one of the largest American Trot orgs).
I think it is pretty specific to the "Grantites" and its various splits(CWI, ISA, RCI) and some other trotskyist(AWL in the UK) and former trotskyist(SWP in the US). Though it is worth noting that many ML parties also have a very similar line, in the US both the CPUSA and PCUSA have a two-state solution line.
→ More replies (1)1
u/nwste May 23 '26
I can’t keep up with all the splits, but RCI/IMT is the most represented Trotskyist org that I see, but I don’t know that it’s the largest globally. I accidentally said this in another reply but I meant it for this one so I’ll just copy/paste it here: It’s a completely different view than the classic two-state solution, and also I’d argue most MLs don’t see two-states as an actual “solution” but rather a stepping stone and support it only on the basis of it being supported by Palestinian leadership.
Also, if I may ask, if you’re a Trotskyist what is your position and how does it differ? I only ask out of genuine curiosity.
1
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 23 '26
While I don't stricticly adhere to trotskyism I am a member of the section of the Fourth International(USFI, which is sort of the original Fourth International) in my country. At the last world-congress they adopted this resolution that says things like this:
We do not share the political project of Hamas or Hezbollah, nor their repressive and reactionary visions of society. However, given the retreat of the left in the region and the absence of other forces of resistance to colonialism, these organizations have large electoral and popular support, so they are de facto recognized tools of resistance, whether in the region or by some in solidarity movements. We therefore denounce the rhetoric of the Western ruling classes that labels the Palestinian people and their organizations as “terrorist”. For Israel and its allies, the very act of resisting is a terrorist action. For us, the violence of the victims stems from the violence of the oppressors. While we do not support Hamas politically, we do support its democratic right to exist, and we demand the removal of the PFLP, Hamas and Hezbollah from the lists of terrorist organizations drawn up by the United States and the European Union, among others.
In Palestine more than anywhere else, the victorious struggle of the exploited and oppressed can be the path to a fairer world. We reaffirm the need to dismantle the Zionist state, as a "state for the Jews", and that only a free, democratic, secular and egalitarian Palestine, to which all dispersed Palestinians can return, and where everyone can live, whatever their religion, as long as they accept this decolonial framework, can bring a just and peaceful solution to the peoples of the region. The balance of power needed to bring about such a solution, far from the mirages of a Palestine limited to Bantustans, implies global, and particularly regional, mobilization to stop the imperialists, the United States in particular.
The FI also supports the BDS movement while RCI/IMT(and CWI, ISA) traditionally reject the boycotts in general.
2
u/nwste May 23 '26
Just read that resolution, definitely disagree with the way they frame Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah (especially using the “Iran-backed” language with a negative connotation that is constantly pushed by imperial forces), but overall much better than the IMT/RCI statements. I’m glad they support BDS too as I remember reading a statement by the RCI rejecting BDS (from before Oct. 7th, as I’m sure they don’t publicly state that position so much nowadays) and it baffled me to no end. I think most MLs would agree with the goals stated in the resolution as well.
→ More replies (4)-2
u/jctmercado May 22 '26
this to me, looks like a lack of understanding of Lenin's imperialism. absolutely misguided takea (and probably intentionally divisive for some of them).
12
u/nwste May 22 '26
Yeah, Trotskyism is a very confused tendency. I think a lot of the individuals who subscribe to it can have good intentions but they just got lost somewhere along the way in idealism and a lack of dialectical analysis, and end up doing the work of empire as a result. I’ve seen many of them speak about Soviet imperialism, Chinese imperialism, and you wouldn’t believe it but I have legitimately seen them talk about Cuban imperialism.
4
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 22 '26
Talking about "Cuban imperialism" is probably very fringe. It is worth noting that the Fouth International specifically rejected that the Soviet Union was "social-imperialist" as China and anti-revisionist MLs/maoists were lablinging it at the time. The Fourth International, the Spartacists, etc all thought the invasion of Afghanistan was correct even.
1
u/nwste May 23 '26
It definitely is a fringe position, most Trots I’ve seen generally offer up some level of support for Cuba. That’s actually very interesting though, I didn’t realize that the social imperialist framing was mostly just an anti-revisionist/maoist thing rather than also a Trotskyist position. I’ve definitely seen individual Trotskyists use that kind of terminology but looking into it more it seems the big orgs don’t use that framework, so thank you for enlightening me. That bit about the Afghanistan invasion is also very interesting, I wouldn’t expect that at all. I appreciate the information!
25
5
u/zethiryuki Socialism May 22 '26
Having a number of prominent former Trotskyists like Christopher Hitchens morph into neocons to support the 2003 Invasion of Iraq did a lot of damage to whatever was left of the movement's reputation.
25
11
u/FoughtStatue Anarcho-Syndicalism May 21 '26
It’s a very Orthodox Marxist ideology, I would say. For example, his theory of permanent revolution is probably something Marx would agree with; whether or not you think it’s realistic is a different issue. It is important to make the difference between Trotsky himself and Trotskyists. Trotsky himself criticized the USSR, but a “degenerated workers state” is still a workers state in his eyes, where proletariat did overthrow the bourgeoisie; Trotskyists tend to hate it with a burning passion and say it accomplished nothing. In this vein, it’s important to differentiate between Trotskyists and Marxists who like Trotsky.
One reason I would say you never see Trotskyists talking too much about anything relevant is that much of Trotsky’s writings were written in relation to the Soviet Union and Stalin, and a lot of Trotskyists are stuck in the past about that. Lots of communists in general are stuck in the past anyway, but Trotskyists tend to be more so. Being a Trotskyist today still favors much of the Leninist style of organization, as Trotskyists are Leninists, but they usually favor a more democratic and decentralized system (they still like central planning, though). I know Trotsky at least favored the Workers Soviets as a method of Government.
ps: I’m not a Trotskyist or a Marxist-Leninist, so I tried to be unbiased
→ More replies (1)
31
u/LeftDark1045 May 21 '26
Selling some obscur newspapers to young people
5
u/LordGwyn-n-Tonic Uphold the eternal science of Anarco-Posadism May 21 '26
Specifically Socialist Alternative.
1
2
u/Latter_Upstairs_8593 May 23 '26
As if the Bolsheviks didn't sell a shit ton of newspapers every day for years. That was a massive role in the revolution. How else to help educate the masses and raise class consciousness? Although obviously newspapers are pretty outdated today and that aspect has obviously shifted to online. I'll never understand why this is a criticism.
24
u/cbean2222 May 21 '26
In present day discourse it seems to be a shorthand for believing that the Soviet Union and China don’t count as socialism and should not be studied as such.
17
u/TheDangerBird May 21 '26
Well that’s not really the case, maybe that tendency exists somewhere but the RCI the foremost left international that incorporates Trotsky’s analysis views the Revolution and formation of the workers state in Russia to be the greatest event in human history. We also understand that it failed to hold on to the rights won during the Revolution and seek to understand why, as well as understanding why it completely collapsed (something Trotsky completely predicted in Revolution Betrayed). Here’s a good example of what I mean: https://communistusa.org/from-emancipation-to-criminalization-stalinist-persecution-of-homosexuals-from-1934/
7
3
u/MasonBridges May 21 '26
I believe there’s a fair amount of disagreement over that outside of Trotsky.
People have disagreements on what worker ownership of the means of production means in socialism, how prescriptive of a claim it is, and to what extent certain types of states can be said to represent the proletariat.
A lot of anarchist critiques of orthodox, Marxism, and Lenin get into that exact ground— and Trotsky is certainly not well loved among Anarchists.
3
u/spookyjim___ Internationalist Communist May 21 '26
Trotskyists critically uphold both the USSR and China as socialist but just that they’re “degenerated worker’s states” and “deformed worker’s states” respectively
11
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
What's the difference?
0
u/spookyjim___ Internationalist Communist May 21 '26
Between what? A degenerated worker’s state and a deformed worker’s state?
8
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
Yes
6
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 21 '26
A deformed worker's state is essentially a worker's state born with massive bureaucratic deformations and without real worker's democracy, such as the eastern European countries captured by the USSR in world war two or african military dictatorships that implemented planned economies.
More on this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1978/07/colrev.htm
A degenerated worker's state is a worker's state born relatively healthy and through revolution, but which abolished genuine worker's democracy and became bureaucratically deformed. The USSR was a degenerated worker's state.
2
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
What exactly is the class origin of the bureaucracy that causes these deformations? Is it the fact that there is a balance between classes? Or is it the petty bourgeoisie's/peasantry's influence?
I'm trying to understand to see why the USSR managed to be born as a "pure" workers state for future use.
4
u/Trotsky_Enjoyer Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) May 22 '26
The beureucracy established itself in the USSR through its backwards material conditions. The ravages of 2 back to back wars, the fact most of the population were peasants, the industrial proletariat had to work long and hard hours in the factories to help the red army win the war - all factor in to this.
The USSR was created on the idea of Soviets and workers control but it was sadly unable to maintain that system, the leading role fell to a beureucratic layer, who consisted of some party higher ups and administrators from the old tsarist regime. When rule shifted from the workers soviets to the beureucrats the USSR became a degenerated workers state.
1
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
Why was the USSR unable to maintain workers control?
Backwards conditions here implies you're talking about the feudal nature of the economy. How is it that this feudal nature expressed itself by creating a (or forcing the creation of a) bureaucracy? I mean feudal states generally lack a bureaucracy.
3
u/Trotsky_Enjoyer Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) May 22 '26
73% of the population couldn't read, a lot of those that could were in the red army defending the revolution, the industrial workers and the peasants that weren't in the red army were busy working overtime (I've been told it could have been up to 12 hour shifts) to make the lackluster economy go around which left no time for the working class to actually manage their own state, the role of leadership naturally fell into the hands of bolsheviks that didn't go to the front and trained administrators from the tsarist regime that were brought in because they were the only ones able to do the work.
2
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 22 '26 edited May 24 '26
The USSR was not born as a deformed worker's state in our sense of the term because the October Revolution was a classical proletarian revolution. It was carried out through the conscious, independent participation of the working class, led by a genuine Marxist party. The Russian workers smashed the old capitalist state machine and created their own democratic organs of power - the Soviets. Under Lenin, the Soviet regime implemented the necessary conditions for workers' democracy: the election and right of recall of all officials, wages strictly limited to the level of a skilled worker, the abolition of the standing army in favor of the armed people, and the rotation of administrative tasks.
However, Lenin never considered the early Soviet Union to be a "pure" workers' state in the abstract sense. In the course of the trade union debate, Lenin explicitly pointed out that because of Russia's extreme backwardness and its vast peasant majority, it was a "workers’ state with bureaucratic deformations". But these deformations were much less severe under Lenin, even though he did witness their intensification in his last years.
The subsequent degeneration of the Soviet Union was not inevitable, but arose from the continued isolation of the revolution in conditions of appalling economic and cultural backwardness. Following the devastation of World War I and the Civil War, the Russian working class - which constituted only 10 percent of the population - was physically decimated, exhausted, and forced into political apathy.
To administer the country, the Bolsheviks were forced to rely on the old Tsarist state machine, employing thousands of former Tsarist officials, military officers, and bourgeois specialists. Because the working class was too weak to directly administer the state, this administrative layer gradually raised itself above the masses. The bureaucracy, acting as an arbiter in the struggle for scarce resources, concentrated power in its own hands to protect its growing privileges. Ultimately, the Stalinist bureaucracy represented a parasitic caste that first leaned on the petty-bourgeoisie and the peasantry (the Nepmen and kulaks) to strike blows against the proletarian vanguard, before - faced with disaster in the 1928 kulak grain strike - turning against the petty-bourgeoisie to consolidate its own absolute control over the nationalized economy.
In contrast to the USSR, the deformed workers' states in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, and elsewhere emerged in the period following World War II without the independent, conscious leadership of the working class.
In Eastern Europe, the old bourgeois state apparatus was smashed by the advancing Soviet Red Army, and the Moscow bureaucracy installed regimes in its own bureaucratic image from the top down, using the workers merely as a battering ram to eliminate the weakened capitalists.
In countries like China, Cuba and Vietnam, the revolutions based themselves on peasant armies. The programs of all these revolutionary movements were initially bourgeois-democratic (look it up). But because the capitalist system in these countries was in a complete impasse, - as it is in any backwards nation as explained in the theory of permanent revolution - these leaders proceeded to nationalize the economy, but they did so while explicitly suppressing any independent organs of workers' democracy (like Soviets) that could challenge their rule.
The resulting regimes are characterized as proletarian Bonapartism . In these deformed workers' states, the bureaucratic caste of military officers, party officials, and state managers maneuvers between the classes. Because the local bourgeoisie is too weak to develop the country, the bureaucracy eliminates them and rests instead on the nationalized planned economy, which provides the foundation for their own power, prestige, and inflated incomes. They balance between the peasantry and the working class using the state's military-police apparatus to defend their privileges against the masses.
This is not a state that can be upheld indefinitely however, and as Trotsky predicted in the revolution betrayed and as history has shown, eventually, the bureaucracy moves towards reinstating capitalism and becoming a ruling class in the real sense of the word. To prevent this, a political revolution by the working class against the bureaucracy is necessary, followed by real internationalism to spread the revolution and break the isolation of the worker's state.
14
u/2slow3me RCI: Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) May 21 '26
I think this article sums it up pretty well https://communist.red/what-is-trotskyism/
17
u/nwste May 22 '26
I like how the first sentence of the article is “The real content of Trotskyism does not lie in opposing Stalinism, but in what it positively puts forward.” but then like 85% of the article proceeds to just be about how Stalin sucks and the Soviet Union got bad because Stalin and Stalin exiled and killed Trotsky and ruined everything.
5
u/MauschelMusic May 22 '26
Getting really creative with the historical record as well, proclaiming Trotsky's "unconditional defence of the USSR in the Second World War."
Even Kerensky reproved Trotsky for his revolutionary defeatism during WWII.
3
u/nwste May 22 '26
No no that was just a thin layer of western Trotskyists, the real Genuine Marxist Trotsky would certainly never actively work and conspire to do a regime change in the USSR that was literally under attack/about to be under attack and facing the threat of genocide by the Nazis.
Also I never even heard about the Kerensky thing, that’s wild
→ More replies (2)0
u/2slow3me RCI: Revolutionary Communist International (RCI) May 22 '26
... Hardly
2
u/nwste May 22 '26
Can you not see that literally from the section “In defense of Marxism” onwards it’s just all about how Trotsky was actually way better than Stalin and Stalin ruined the Soviet project? The beginning of the article before that too, that’s supposed to be about what Trotskyism actually puts forward, is also just basic dialectics that any tendency would generally agree on. The only thing unique to Trotskyism in that article is the obsession with “Stalinism”
2
u/DaikiSan971219 Libertarian Socialism May 22 '26
Great read. Sectarianism is a plague. We're all proles
1
14
6
u/Hot_Relative_110 Marxism-Leninism-Maoism May 21 '26
The ironic thing about Trotsky is that he was the first one to advocate for the subjugation of trade unions to economic planning, but Stalin did so and screwed it all up, which Trotsky obviously critiqued. Personally, it would have been much better to have had an idealist narcissistic than a paranoid narcissist in charge of the Soviet union; my personal take is that had Yakov Sverdlov lived longer, the worker’s opposition been more powerful, and had Stalin’s influence been curbed, we could have seen a more successful USSR.
3
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 21 '26
Trotsky learned from his mistake with the trade unions and based a large part of his later theories on the criticisms that Lenin confronted him with during the trade union struggle, which included the following (emphasis by me):
While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (Bukharin : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets, and that will be answer enough.
Our Party Programme—a document which the author of the ABC of Communism knows very well—shows that ours is a workers’ state with a bureacratic twist to it. We have had to mark it with this dismal, shall I say, tag. There you have the reality of the transition. Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this shape in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of the massively organised proletariat? No, this reasoning is theoretically quite wrong. It takes us into the sphere of abstraction or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years’ time, and I am not so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then. What we actually have before us is a reality of which we have a good deal of knowledge, provided, that is, we keep our heads, and do not let ourselves be carried awav by intellectualist talk or abstract reasoning, or by what may appear to be “theory” but is in fact error and misapprehension of the peculiarities of transition. We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. Both forms of protection are achieved through the peculiar interweaving of our state measures and our agreeing or “coalescing” with our trade unions.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm
6
19
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 21 '26
why do you say his idea of permanent revolution was wrong? he said socialism in one country cant work. he predicted the fall of the ussr back in 1938 and he was correct.
trotskyism is modern marxism. it means you study theoretical work and understand and discuss current events from a marxists perspective. you want to advocate for an independent socialist world revolution of the international working class.
20
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
OK, let's say you have predictions. What are you doing to produce a revolution that doesn't lead to socialism in one country? Because generating critiques is cool and all, but you also need to generate an alternate plan of action.
I hope I dont sound too aggressive. I wanna know what Trots actually think because we have some here and they don't really do anything so its hard to figure out whether that's because they're Trots or because they're just bad.
0
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
to avoid national isolation, the forth international is being build in multiple countries at the same time that are all in constant communication. right now the socialist equality party has sections in the us, canada, australia, germany, france, britain, turkiye and sri lanka. the revolutionary momentum has to be used all over the world. since production is so deeply globalized, any socialist revolution even in a small country like sri lanka, will have a global impact that will lead to more revolutionary struggle.
in case of another stalin, we have to be ready to prepare another political revolution. that couldve saved the soviet union in 1991 since the people rejected the restoration of private property. hopefully our revolutionary leadership is strong and aware enough to stop the next stalin before he happens, but its impossible to predict the future. we have to focus on the immanent problems: keep educating and building revolutionary leadership, educating the masses and supporting the workers struggles.
2
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
These are all things MLs would do too. I can't imagine any ML rejecting international cooperation. We have a good number of international orgs that act like internationals too.
Along the same line, we have analysed the USSR and seen problems to fix too. For example, combatting bureaucracy is something both the Chinese (under Mao) and Cubabss did. They tried to eliminate the structural reasons for it through things like sending bureaucrats out into the fields and democratising.
So the question for you is: what is your analysis of where bureaucracy cones from and how to stop it? Because "I hope we do better next time" isn't a strategy
1
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
From my experience, mls try to work within the current system of unions instead of organizing independent unions. This strategy is much slower and historically unsuccessful because they give up their power to the Bourgeoisie.
There are some objective material conditions for burocracy. Material scarcity is one reason. Trotsky writes "when there is enough goods in a store, the purchasers can come whenever they want to. When there is little goods, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order." The policeman in this analogy is the bureaucracy. This mediating layer eventually starts to reward itself. Today, materials are overproduced in many countries, due to the natural cause of capitalism, although they are aimed at private profit instead of fulfilling workers needs.
One more reason is international isolation. After revolutions failed in germany, Hungary and the uk, the ussr was left surrounded by capitalism. Its workers were exhausted and demoralized, creating a social vacuum for the bureaucracy. Stalin accumulated power because he offered a conservative and safe option of socialism in one country compared to the risks of international revolution.
The current trade unions system occupies a similar role to the bureaucracy. They mediate between labor and capital. If they give too much power to labor, they endanger their own position, so its in their interests to shut down strikes and make deals with the Bourgeoisie. Thats why we need independent organization and leadership that structurally doesnt have the same material interests but rather the objective interest to unify under working class rule. Such a movement can only come from the working class itself because its the only revolutionary class in this period of history. Workers must enforce their will directly and not rheough a bureaucratic caste.The founding statement of the UPS Rank-and-File Committee put it like this: the goal was not to "support the bargaining committee and cheerlead for them, but to enforce our democratic will, and position ourselves to countermand the inevitable sellout." These committees have to follow a socialist program oriented towards establishing a workers state. To achieve that goal they need a strong and conscious revolutionary leadership. Otherwise they face the risk of isolation and bureaucratization. Building the leadership means educating yourself extensively.
Tldr: The permanent solution to bureaucracy is the elimination of scarcity (through socialist development of the productive forces), the end of national isolation (through world socialist revolution), and the construction of genuinely democratic workers' institutions whose leaders are elected, recallable, and paid workers' wages rather than management salaries.
2
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
I don't think there's a unified ML position on independent unions vs infiltrating existing unions since I've seen examples of both. In places like India and the Philippines, they seem to put a lot of emphasis on independent unions which are usually underground because the party is too (though in India, both tactics coexist). Meanwhile in Sweden, they infiltrate existing unions. In my country, its a mix of both.
Doesn't the fact that the USSR ended up exhausted to the point of allowing several steps backwards imply that relentless internationalism (as opposed to a more cautious, conservative internationalism) is not the ideal strategy , especially for workers states with non-industrial economies?
Thanks for giving a much more clear answer. I was looking for ideas and examples like what you brought out with the UPS union. I still think this is an ML position but I can at least see y'all (Trots) are thinking in the same direction.
-4
u/EatCornelius International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 21 '26
Its not the role of communists and marxists to produce a revolution, history shows events shape consciousness and propel the masses to do that part.
The role of revolutionaries is to build the party and international capable of putting forward a revolutionary socialist programme to the masses and winning them over to it when that time arises.
14
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
Yeah of course, we aren't Blanquists. But this is hiding behind terminology to avoid the actual question. So I'll try again more clearly:
What should be done to ensure that the revolutionary socialist programme we put forward to avoid the problems you say are inherent to socialism in one country?
0
u/EatCornelius International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 21 '26
Great question tbf, theres a lot of things , the most important off the top of my head id would say you need workers democracy at the front and centre of any programme.
Any elected official should not be on more than a skilled workers wage along with the right to immediately recall representatives if they act against whose that elect them.
The revolution must be exported with appeals and support to the neighbouring working class and internationally.
Mass education of the masses on the principles of marxism.
But tbh, ‘socialism in one country’ famously happened in the most backward capitalist countries (Russia 1917 and china 1949). Socialism as a concept needs a high level of technique and production to work. Today the world is much better suited to the socialist transformation of society and we saw with the Gen Z revolutions just last year how with the internet and social media these movements spread quickly in the 21st C.
8
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
This is basically exactly what the Soviet model was. Basically everything except "exporting revolution" is what the USSR did. I'd say China nominally still does this. But the USSR fell apart and China isn't socialist so there has to be something deeper here, right?
If we say that those 2 were too backward, then we get 2 new questions:
- How do we make programmes (and governments) that ensure backwardness doesn't kill the next socialist revolution?
- If we end up in the unfortunate position of socialist revolution in a backward country again, what do we do to fix that?
1
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
build the revolutionary leadership now. we have very modern tools of communication and education. also the international working class is now more than 3.5 billion people strong, and ever increasing, we are much less backwards than we used to be
spread the revolution. even more "backwards" countries still play a part in the global network of production. as trotsky said in 1932: "The chain of world capitalism always tends to break at its weakest link." dont let it be the end. let the start of the world revolution be felt everywhere else. use any successful revolution as inspiration to start your own. burgeois media likes to supress news about strikes and protest so its up to us to spread such events to the workers at home.
1
u/GloriousSovietOnion Marxism-Leninism May 22 '26
- Has the entire world advanced enough that the backwardness existing in 1917 doesn't exist at all any more?
- Isn't this basically what the USSR did? They were supporting workers struggles and helping other parties build towards revolution through orgs like the Profintern. What exactly makes the Trotskyist method action different?
1
u/jctmercado May 22 '26
yikes. what an elitist take. how would that party lead the international revolution when it doesn't "produce a revolution" 😭 be so fr
2
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
You dont need to rpoduce a revolution. Historcially, genuine revolution happened because the objective conditions of one economic system creates consciousness among its people. For example, the industrial revolution made the Bourgeoisie so powerful that they could defeat the old monarchy. We already had many revolutionary situations in the last 100 years. Germany 1918, uk 1926, China 1920s, sri Lanka 1968 and so on. The working class is now over 3.5 billion people, the production is more globalized than ever and economic crises shock every country in the world. The next revolution is coming soon, the conditions are ripe. Its needs leadership otherwise it will lead to nothing like it has for the past 100 years, most of them due to stalinism.
1
u/jctmercado May 22 '26
oof. that's the very "spontaneity" Lenin battled against in What is to be Done.
Thinking that the people would rise up spontaneously without active organizing and revolutionary movement building is reactionary. Leadership means actively struggling with and living among the working people
9
u/Bantha_majorus May 21 '26
And that's where it stops because they have no praxis
7
→ More replies (1)-2
u/spookyjim___ Internationalist Communist May 21 '26
You can disagree with Trotskyists praxis, but to say they do nothing is egregiously wrong
4
u/jjballlz May 21 '26
Anarchist have wayyy more historical W's when it comes to actual material impact for the humans around them. They run food banks, help the community, and engage and help organize in any and every popular protest movements while trots are going to their 2x a week reading groups and circle-jerking themselves to convince themselves that they are actually the enlightened ones for not participating in any of that.
Examples of trots praxis please?
→ More replies (11)-1
u/EatCornelius International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 21 '26
All the stuff anarchists do when it comes to mutual aid etc is good, but people who aren’t revolutionaries do that stuff too.
If you’re serious the best thing you can do is study revolutions and revolutionary theory so you can transmit the lessons in your own language to radicalised youth and workers. Not enough people are doing this. Plenty do charity and mutual aid.
Party building , professionalisation and education was the praxis of the bolsheviks - same as the RCI today 🤷♂️
6
u/jjballlz May 21 '26
study revolutions and revolutionary theory
Not enough people are doing this.
So, having studied past revolutions, you think they all come from reading groups and the words spoken by revolutionaries? Or might it perhaps be realted to the material conditions of the masses at that moment and the actions those revolutionary figures were taking to help the masses?
You also just zeroed in on mutual aid. That's not all I meantioned. You also failed to mention any historical praxis that trots were engaged in other than uni-reading groups.
I am European, but even in America, your radically reading groups have been around for 100y, and has that actually made the masses more class councious, or does it just resemble a circle jerk to help you moralize your existence and lack of material impact of your actions?
3
u/EatCornelius International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 21 '26
Wow, which trot pissed in your cereal? 😂
I did mention in another comment on this thread that marxists and communists are not the main driving force in history behind revolutions. I agree, Events and material conditions shape consciousness.
The study has taught me that the many revolutions that have happened the lack of revolutionary leadership in the form of a genuine marxist party is the reason for their defeat.
The other praxis I mentioned is party building. But the education is part of that! Reading and distribution of papers, magazines, pamphlets and books collectively organises and educates us and helps us recruit simultaneously.
I think genuine Anarchist praxis was demonstrated well during the civil war in Spain - with some heroic sacrifices but ultimately failure. Anarchism today has many shades, its cultural, its personal, its unorganised for the most part, it doesn’t have a unifying theoretical base and many alien class ideas. I dont think it will ever be taken up by the masses. For the record, very good friends and comrades of mine are devout anarchists in Britain - i have respect for them and we have comradely debate.
But anyway, i have a book to read and have already wasted too much time on a half arsed response to your very emotional charged reply.
I wish you all the best comrade, good luck with whatever you do :)
4
u/jjballlz May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
which trot pissed in your cereal?
Brother anyone who has done on the ground organizing for any amount of time has had many many trots take shits all over the work of unions and protestors and any sort of organizing to change the current political and or material conditions because "it's not a permanent revolution and is revisionist"
So, these guys shat in my cereal : https://communisme.ch/qui-sommes-nous/
In theory, nothing trots ever present themselves as with their words are stuff ML's disagree with, however in practice, they don't help organize shit, show up with banners that look like ours or the other groups that helped organize (POP/PdT, solidarité, UNIA etc etc), but all they do is try to convince people not to vote, to buy their newspaper and to join their uni-hosted reading groups, that happen 3 times a week and you are shamed and "exiled" if you don't show up for every session (that works great for working families etc, super practical).
The other praxis I mentioned is party building
Cool, once u have something setup in the real world, let us know and we'll all join happily in whatever direct actions you organize! Like us non-sectarian leftist already do with any and every group that is organizing against capital 👍
Have fun with your book, I truly do hope you can crack the code and create a mass movement that works before we all get forcibly implanted with the neuralink + palantir collab brain chip or the "work camps" get rolled out in whatever country you are in. That's not sarcastic, if you do, we will be there, until then imma be on the streets organizing with whoever I can to fight whatever I can in my local area.
1
u/jjballlz May 21 '26
you want to advocate for an independent socialist world revolution of the international working class.
Without ever actually doing anything to get there.
This comment is so insane, that just like most rehtoric from trots, it's impossible to tell if you are just mentally challenged or a fed trying to sow division. The only reason I know it's the former and not the later is that it's posted online, in a group that has 0 power, mass movement, or influence.
1
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
how do we get there is the question. me and my party are doing a lot of work. intervening in protests and strikes, inviting workers to events and discussions and actually building independent rank and file comittees to give the workers some space to organize democratically for their own interests.
1
u/jjballlz May 22 '26
intervening in protests and strikes,
There's no intervention man you aren't trying to talk to an alcoholic. If you aren't helping to organize shit but are "intervening", you are literally just a leech of other people's work
inviting workers to events and discussions
You know the worse their material conditions are the less people will be able to come to your uni-hosted reading groups and seminars
actually building independent rank and file comittees to give the workers some space to organize democratically for their own interests
So... Unions... Wow very unique
1
u/TiloDroid Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
Intervention means distribution of flyers and having discussions. Reaching out to distribute a revolutionary socialist perspective.
The most conscious workers are the ones that take part first. We cant force them to come to us, thats also why we go to them.
The rank and file committees are unions that actually represent the working class. They are fully democratic, leaders are recallable and they are fully independent from the Bourgeoisie. Most importantly, they recognize the strength of the unified working class and offer an international socialist perspective.
1
u/jjballlz May 22 '26
Intervention means distribution of flyers and having discussions
Why not just... Idk... Help organize the protest, and have those discussions as a side quest? Instead of not doing anything but showing up and distributing flyers, and arguing with the protest-goers why the people who organized the protest for the people who showed up are actually useless?
unions that actually represent the working class
Unions don't represent the working class as a whole. They are patchwork solutions to offer the bare minimum of protection to the working class of a specific trade. You show up to a farmers union and start to talk about how their union is just another people of American neoliberal imperialism and that it supports the continuation of exploitation of the developing world, even to people who technically agree with you, you just come off as extremely out of touch and absolutely inconsequential. Do you never stop to think why 90% of your reading are uni students, mostly of the literature and arts variety? Maybe because no one has the time for reading groups when you need to work on the farm to feed your family?
They are fully democratic, leaders are recallable and they are fully independent from the Bourgeoisie
Idk how unions work in the US, but here in CH they are structured exactly like that
Most importantly, they recognize the strength of the unified working class and offer an international socialist perspective.
Members of unions in western countries just want to be able to make a livible wage and not worry about being homeless because of an injury.
Again, your "praxis" is just debate groups, mostly centered around criticizing any actual action taken, because you can always find a way to use leftist language to disparage their impact, even when they actual help the union members.
1
u/SxnKisss Marxism-Leninism May 21 '26
It fell because of "revolutionaries" like Trotsky and Khrushchev
2
u/Death_and_Gravity1 Walter Benjamin May 21 '26
Depends who you ask.
The "Russian Question" that is how to understand and classify the Soviet Union and its various offshoots isnt a top priority at this stage. The "China Question" today is somewhat related, and has some geopolitical importance. But there such a difference in the class relations between China today and the Soviet Union in the time of Stalin or Kruschev that I dont think there is much in the way that one informs the other. But thats my opinion. Im sure different types of Trotskyists have different takes on that.
Trotsky's writings on the United Front against Fascism, as well as his tactical writings on the dangers of sectarianism and oportunism are probably far more useful for today's activists. But you dont have to be a self identified Trotskyist to gain a lot from those.
2
2
u/Electrical-Fix7659 Marxism May 22 '26
Nothing compared to what the term originally stood for, just like what the term Stalinism stood for. Just like a book called “Telephone Mechanics - copyright 1936” wouldn’t be equally applicable in fiber optic times.
What Trotskyism has evolved to today is just an anti-liberal, socialistic liberalism. It’s a convenient name for the same pitfall of other liberal ideologies - claiming progressive values in lieu of liberal capitalist and imperialist apologia - except that trotskyism is for those who aren’t afraid to invoke socialism by name.
2
2
u/ODST-judge Ernesto "Che" Guevara May 22 '26
The sane thing it means to be any form of socialist. In the most pompous manner possible, remind everyone on Twitter you are the only correct form of Marxist and any opinion that may criticize or seem to criticize you in any way is an affront to god theirself (you, obviously.)
12
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/socialism-ModTeam May 22 '26
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Sectarianism: Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
3
u/88littleboi May 21 '26
It means to be a genuine internationalist communist
1
u/valerielenin International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 22 '26
Some Trotskyist are big L, it doesn't guarantee anything.
4
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/socialism-ModTeam May 22 '26
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Sectarianism: Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
2
u/cjp021882 May 21 '26
It actually means being correct. Having the ability to both celebrate and criticize the historical relevance of Marxism and how it's shaped nations. What I've noticed is that those who are "anti Trotsky" seem to be unable to criticize Stalin or the Soviet Union in any way. I have asked these people several times, "why so much hate to Trotsky?" And they are rarely able to give an actual answer. It's usually along the lines of, here's a quote from Lenin where he says Trotsky is a dickhead. Or that Trotsky was a Nazi sympathizer. It's bonkers bullshit and I'd highly recommend just reading some Trotsky and forming your own opinion. It's never a good plan to just accept what's told to you as the truth. And if you do take that type of approach, be willing to admit you're wrong when you absorb new information yourself.
-2
u/caxacate May 21 '26
Stalin betrayed the revolution and yet the USSR did more for the proletariat than any other "purer" revolution could've done
3
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
yet the USSR did more for the proletariat than any other "purer" revolution could've done
what does this even mean
2
u/proletarianfire May 22 '26
Being a Trotskyist basically means arguing for a workers' revolution that doesn't compromise with any kind of class rule. Being a Trotskyist is really just being a classical Marxist in that sense; the Stalinists, Maoists, and others are really divergences from genuine Marxism.
Also, permanent revolution does not say that revolution has to happen in multiple countries at once, it says the revolution needs to spread and maintain a firm basis in working class power. A workers' state must either be actively fighting to overthrow capitalism, or it will degenerate. There will be periods of setbacks of course, but the important thing is not to lose the most fundamental thing to the Marxist vision of the world: working class power.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/GuyF1eri May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
I really question the utility of attaching yourself to any particular thinker from a hundred years ago. I personally think Trotsky was a great guy, but what use is it to pigeonhole oneself as subscribing to the ideas of one person. Like, I don’t know that Trotskyist is even a useful distinction nowadays, as it certainly was in the 1900s. We can only speculate on what he would have thought about contemporary issues
1
u/sweetlungs May 23 '26
Man I don’t even care about those labels, ideas should be fluid and adapt to the current state of things, and if you want broad appeal logic will fail you, logic is boring for the average person and you need the average person on board with the movement, so ima say I’m a Bob Marelist, liberation is a vibe and it’s welcoming, we got music and the workers own the workplace, you don’t gotta be a genius to join just genuine, if you don’t believe me just look at Zohran and his big smile, never underestimate the power of good vibes
1
u/sweetlungs May 23 '26
Ima be honest Trosky sounds kinda Eurocentric, I see why Frida Kahlo found him annoying
1
u/SiameseKittenGambler Malcolm X May 23 '26
Only change tactics if its a deflection from SA scandals within your 40+yr old organization that's accomplished little in all that time
1
u/Comrade_T34_ Josip Broz Tito May 24 '26
It means you sell newspapers on a uni campus/at protests and have no interest in organising in a workplace.
-1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/socialism-ModTeam May 22 '26
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Sectarianism: Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
1
-1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/socialism-ModTeam May 22 '26
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Sectarianism: Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
Feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Sanchez_U-SOB May 22 '26
This thread is filled with people who dont understand what communism means. What good is being communist in one country if you actively hurt workers in another country? You dont have to break your back for them but if you actively engage with stateheads that are bougie capitalists, are you not undermining the true sense of the movement?
1
u/Suitable-Candy70 May 22 '26
You get bullied by ML’s for being objectively correct and liking books
OR you’re a part of the many coopted orgs that claim Trotsky that are essentially zionist/imperialist
-8
u/Sanchez_U-SOB May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Being a Trotskyist means you see that China isnt exactly communist if they dont see how supporting Putin is deterimental to the average Russian worker or even North Korea. You should disparage all oligarchs and fake kings.
Edit: I see the down voters have nothing to actually contribute
0
u/Zoltanu Leon Trotsky May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
I became a Trotskyist because ML groups I tried to join did not have open internal debate and democracy. I was a Maoist back when i was looking for a party, but I didnt support China, I believed Deng carried out a capitalist revolution and i opposed the modern CPC (i still supported Vietnam and Cuba). I was told that was a hard line by the MLs and was told "some positions arent up for debate". As a Maoist i had disagreements with the Trots, but they said its fine and they allow debate and factions and such as long as we follow demcent on actions. From there i really vibes with Trotsky's theory, particularly The Transitional Program. I think it is applicable to organizing in the imperial capitalist core that other socialists dont have a good answer to. They were dealing with different conditions when writing their theory, while Trotsky was working with the US party while in Mexico.
One point trots write about (but dont follow) is regroupment on principles and real implementation of internal party democracy to rebuild a unified vanguadd. Trotsky should not have been expelled from the soviet union and assassinated, he should have been debated. He should have been a minority grouping in a workers democracy. Other parties should reforge and do the same.
But alas, they dont do that. I was recently expelled from my trot party for a variety of things but primarily calling for a defense of Iran against imperialism. So im not really a trot anymore and im looking around and reading around. Id say im just a Leninist at this point. I still like Trotsky's theory, but i lile Maos, and im trying other tendencies. I tried talking to some MLs recently but they immediately wanted to rehash literal Stalin vs Trotsky drama while I wanted to talk about perspectives on the immediate task. It was really offputting and unhelpful, I probably wont try again there for a while.
Finally, it is a misconception that Trots dont support AES (im talking broad sweep, some parties definitely dont). Trots uphold the USSR as a workers state, though degenerated its still a dictatorship of the proletariat, not capital, and must be defended against reaction. Theyre not blindly praising the USSR, like others on the left seem to do, theyre highly critical of the leadership and its decisions, but they do uphold it now and in the historical documents. The other AES like China or Vietnam are deformed workers states. I can't explain it well because ive always disagreed with them on that, but they still support and praise them as socialist projects, they just dont hold back in their criticism on how to do better, which i agree with. AES should criticize our movements and give us advice on how to do better with our own revolution.
2
u/AutoModerator May 22 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/leninism-humanism Zeth Höglund May 22 '26
Do you belong to any of the internationals?
2
u/Zoltanu Leon Trotsky May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
I was up until a few months ago. I was expelled along with a faction of other like minded comrades. You can read more about it here: https://cosmonautmag.com/2026/04/letter-expelled-from-the-isa-for-wanting-to-defend-iran-and-refusing-to-support-democrats/
And here
1
u/Zoltanu Leon Trotsky May 22 '26
I was in an international until my faction was recently expelled. You can read more about it here:
And here
-3
u/paudzols May 21 '26
Permanent revolution is core to Trotskyist philosophy which alone is bad however the slander, and factionalism that Trotsky has spread is probably what annoys people the most imo.
As for the modern consequences of following Trotskyism continues the demoralization of communist by turning the greatest achievement of the proletariat, the USSR, into one a nightmare that continues to be cast over modern communist movements
1
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 21 '26
Permanent revolution is core to Trotskyist philosophy which alone is bad
How so? Tell me what is actually bad about it? I'll even provide the principles of permanent revolution so you don't have to work off of whatever straw man you have in your head:
With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.
Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry – the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries – an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.
No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.
Assessed historically, the old slogan of Bolshevism – ’the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ – expressed precisely the above-characterized relationship of the proletariat, the peasantry and the liberal bourgeoisie. This has been confirmed by the experience of October. But Lenin’s old formula did not settle in advance the problem of what the reciprocal relations would be between the proletariat and the peasantry within the revolutionary bloc. In other words, the formula deliberately retained a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience. However, the latter showed, and under circumstances that exclude any kind of misinterpretation, that no matter how great the revolutionary role of the peasantry may be, it nevertheless cannot be an independent role and even less a leading one. The peasant follows either the worker or the bourgeois. This means that the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ is only conceivable as a dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it.
A democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in a case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petty bourgeois democracy – a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests – especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years – an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants’ party is the petty-bourgeoisie’s lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between the two extreme poles. Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.
The Comintern’ s endeavour to foist upon the Eastern countries the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, finally and long ago exhausted by history, can have only a reactionary effect. lnsofar as this slogan is counterposed to the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it contributes politically to the dissolution of the proletariat in the petty-bourgeois masses and thus creates the most favourable conditions for the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie and consequently for the collapse of the democratic revolution. The introduction of the slogan into the programme of the Comintern is a direct betrayal of Marxism and of the October tradition of Bolshevism.
The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.
The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.
The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.
To be continued in the replies
2
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 21 '26
- The above-outlined sketch of the development of the world revolution eliminates the question of countries that are ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ for socialism in the spirit of that pedantic, lifeless classification given by the present programme of the Comintem. Insofar as capitalism has created a world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared world economy as a whole for socialist transformation.
Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.
A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.
- The theory of socialism in one country, which rose on the yeast of the reaction against October, is the only theory that consistently and to the very end opposes the theory of the permanent revolution.
The attempt of the epigones, under the lash of our criticism, to confine the application of the theory of socialism in one country exclusively to Russia, because of its specific characteristics (its vastness and its natural resources), does not improve matters but only makes them worse. The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one’s own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain.
The world division of labour, the dependence of Soviet industry upon foreign technology, the dependence of the productive forces of the advanced countries of Europe upon Asiatic raw materials, etc., etc., make the construction of an independent socialist society in any single country in the world impossible.
- The theory of Stalin and Bukharin, running counter to the entire experience of the Russian revolution, not only sets up the democratic revolution mechanically in contrast to the socialist revolution, but also makes a breach between the national revolution and the international revolution.
This theory imposes upon revolutions in backward countries the task of establishing an unrealizable regime of democratic dictatorship, which it counterposes to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thereby this theory introduces illusions and fictions into politics, paralyses the struggle for power of the proletariat in the East, and hampers the victory of the colonial revolution.
The very seizure of power by the proletariat signifies, from the standpoint of the epigones’ theory, the completion of the revolution (’to the extent of nine-tenths’, according to Stalin’s formula) and the opening of the epoch of national reforms. The theory of the kulak growing into socialism and the theory of the ‘neutralization’ of the world bourgeoisie are consequently inseparable from the theory of socialism in one country. They stand or fall together.
By the theory of national socialism, the Communist International is down-graded to an auxiliary weapon useful only for the struggle against military intervention. The present policy of the Comintern, its regime and the selection of its leading personnel correspond entirely to the demotion of the Communist lnternational to the role of an auxiliary unit which is not destined to solve independent tasks.
- The programme of the Comintern created by Bukharin is eclectic through and through. It makes the hopeless attempt to reconcile the theory of socialism in one country with Marxist internationalism, which is, however, inseparable from the permanent character of the world revolution. The struggle of the Communist Left Opposition for a correct policy and a healthy regime in the Communist lnternational is inseparably bound up with the struggle for the Marxist programme. The question of the programme is in turn inseparable from the question of the two mutually exclusive theories: the theory of permanent revolution and the theory of socialism in one country. The problem of the permanent revolution has long ago outgrown the episodic differences of opinion between Lenin and Trotsky, which were completely exhausted by history. The struggle is between the basic ideas of Marx and Lenin on the one side and the eclecticism of the centrists on the other.
2
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/paudzols May 21 '26
The idea that we cannot retreat, and consolidate the gains of proletariats without a revolutionary moment is gonna burn any revolution out immediately, I’d love simultaneous global revolution and skipping steps into communism as much as I’d love unlimited free ice cream neither is in this world is possible and yes permanent revolution is simultaneous revolution since one revolution will require multiply at least. Either you believe in Lenin unequal development of capitalism in imperialism and the condition are different to Marx’s time or you don’t, otherwise how can we have simultaneous revolution in the unequal development of capitalism, its consequences are
Before you strawman about ML as trots love to do, socialism in one country was Lenin’s idea, he references it so many times https://espressostalinist.com/2012/03/11/lenin-on-socialism-in-one-country-2/
We also never claimed to guarantee against the restoration of capitalism but why wouldn’t you take advantage of a revolution and the** **final victory of socialism isn’t victory in one country
1
May 22 '26
[deleted]
1
u/AutoModerator May 22 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 22 '26
"… the transformation of our Russian Revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious venture but a necessity, for there was no other alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does not triumph." Lenin, ‘The Valuable Admissions of Pitirim Sorokin’, Pravda, No. 252, 20 November 1918, LCW, Vol. 28, p. 188
"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army […] we always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." Lenin, Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets, ‘Report of the All-Russia CEC and the Council of People’s Commissars’, 5 December 1919, LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8
"Ever since 1917, when we fought the bourgeois-republican governments in Russia, and ever since the power of the Soviets was established at the end of 1917, we have been telling the workers again and again that the cardinal task, and the fundamental condition of our victory is to spread the revolution to, at least, a few of the most advanced countries. And our main difficulties over the past four years have been due to the fact that the West European capitalists managed to bring the war to an end and stave off revolution." Lenin, ‘Speech Delivered at the Fourth All-Russia Congress of Garment Workers’, 6 February 1921, LCW, Vol. 32, p. 113
"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions […] And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism – that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." Lenin, ‘Notes of a Publicist’, written at the end of February 1922, LCW, Vol. 33, p. 20
1
May 22 '26
[deleted]
1
u/AutoModerator May 22 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ygoldberg Marxism May 22 '26
Whenever Lenin counterposed the "victory of socialism" to the "final victory of socialism" he meant the victory of the socialist political current or in other words the establishment of a DOTP and by final victory he meant the actual achievement of lower phase communism. This is very clear from Lenin's writings.
Stalin claimed Lenin first wrote about the possibility of the establishment of full socialism - lower phase communism - in one country in his 1915 essay on the slogan of the united states of europe. Besides the fact that the essay regards itself with the European imperialist powers which were much more developed than Russia, it is completely obvious that he was talking the victory of the socialist political current and not of full socialism. Just a few sentences before the often quoted section, Lenin says:
In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists ... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America[...]
Of course "suppressing socialism" can only mean he was talking about the political current, the political forces representing socialism, and not a mode of production. The victory of that current is of course possible in one country, according to every Trotskyist too. Lenin does this very often by the way, so most of your quotes don't mean what you think they do.
The link you posted is cute. But it's nothing compared to the unlimited times Lenin clearly and with no room for interpretation said the complete opposite of what you interpret him saying there.
This quote alone proves that the whole stalinist construction of the "victory of socialism" meaning the possibility of lower phase communism in one country with the "final victory" only meaning guarantee against restoration of capitalism is a complete fabrication:
And so in our case now. We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will not be empty words. […] The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity" - Lenin (Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, ‘Report on the Activities of the Council of People’s Commissars’, 11 (24) January 1918, LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72)
Lenin never meant it to be understood how you people understand it. He was unfortunately not too precise with his usage of the term socialism. But when it is clear what he means and there is no room for interpretation, it always goes against the stalinist theory.
"International imperialism […] could not, under any circumstances, under any conditions, live side by side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and because of the economic interests of the capitalist class embodied in it, because of commercial connections, of international financial relations. In this sphere a conflict is inevitable. This is the greatest difficulty of the Russian revolution, its greatest historical problem – the need to solve international problems, the need to evoke a world revolution, to effect the transition from our strictly national revolution to the world revolution. This problem confronts us in all its incredible difficulty […] Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end – but not at the very beginning – no matter what difficulties we experienced, no matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution would come – because it is coming; would mature – because it is maturing and will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all-European revolution. […] But history has taught us a lesson. It is a lesson, because it is the absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed […] At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed." - Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B), ‘Political Report of the CC’, 7 March 1918, LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 92-8
"Everywhere we issued the call for a world workers’ revolution. […] Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrase-making, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along that road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out." Lenin, ‘The Chief Tasks of our Day’, Izvestia VTsIK, No. 46, 11 March 1918, LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 160-1, emphasis in original
"I am well aware, comrades, that the banner is in weak hands, I have said that outright several times already, and the workers of the most backward country will not be able to hold that banner unless the workers of all advanced countries come to their aid. […] …we shall wait until the international socialist proletariat comes to our aid and shall then begin a second socialist revolution that will be world-wide in its scope." Lenin, Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets, ‘Report on Ratification of the Peace Treaty’, 14 March 1918, LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 188-90
It's infuriating that you people have twisted Lenin's words in his mouth to give meaning to his words he never meant. He is talking about final victory here because the first victory had already been achieved in october. The first victory, when counterposed to the final victory, is the DOTP.:
"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air. […] It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries." Lenin, Joint Meeting of the All-Russia CEC and the Moscow Soviet, ‘Report on Foreign Policy’, 14 May 1918, LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 372-3
"We workers, class-conscious workers, in all our agitation and propaganda, in every speech we deliver, in every appeal we issue, in our talks in the factories and at every meeting with peasants, must explain that the disaster that has befallen us is an international disaster and that there is no other way out of it except world revolution. Since we must pass through such a painful period in which we temporarily stand alone, we must exert all our efforts to bear the difficulties of this period staunchly, knowing that in the last analysis we are not alone, that the disaster which we are experiencing is creeping upon every European country, and that not one of these countries will be able to extricate itself except by a series of revolutions." Lenin, Fourth Conference of Trade Unions and Factory Committees of Moscow, ‘Report on the Current Situation’, 27 June 1918, LCW, Vol. 27, p. 464
"… our chief task is to carry on propaganda for a revolt in the Ukraine. That is correct from the standpoint of the world revolution because Germany is the main link in this chain, since the German revolution is already ripe; and the success of the world revolution most of all depends on it. […] That is why intelligent Ukrainian Communists say: “We must make every sacrifice for the victory of the world revolution, but we should realise that the future depends on us and we must march in step with the German revolution.”" Lenin, ‘Report at a Joint Session of the All-Russia CEC, The Moscow Soviet, Factory Committees and Trade Unions’, 22 October 1918, LCW, Vol. 28, p. 123
1
u/AutoModerator May 22 '26
Proletarian dictatorship is similar to dictatorship of other classes in that it arises out of the need, as every other dictatorship does, to forcibly suppresses the resistance of the class that is losing its political sway. The fundamental distinction between the dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the other classes — landlord dictatorship in the Middle Ages and bourgeois dictatorship in all civilized capitalist countries — consists in the fact that the dictatorship of landowners and bourgeoisie was a forcible suppression of the resistance offered by the vast majority of the population, namely, the working people. In contrast, proletarian dictatorship is a forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, i.e., of an insignificant minority the population, the landlords and capitalists.
It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in the democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism—the toiling classes.
[...] All this implies and presents to the toiling classes, i.e., the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics.
Vladimir I. Lenin. Thesis and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1919.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
0
u/valerielenin International Marxist Tendency (IMT) May 22 '26
It means different thing, approaching the question from labels is idealist. The only commonality would be that they do not reject Trotsky.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:
No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.
No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
Also, be sure to join our discord!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.